Are contractors more protected than employees, in some ways
[In reply to]

Can't Post

As has been pointed out several times here, we draw parallels between our own experiences and the situation in NZ at our own risk. But I wonder if you are correct in saying that independent contractors there have the advantage over employees when it comes to job security:

"As a contractor, you sign a contract with a company for a specific amount of time. The company legally has to pay you for that time frame no matter what. As a regular employee a company can terminate the relationship "at will" (as can the employee) for reduction in work force, i.e. layoffs at any time with compensation ending accordingly."

I have been both an independent contractor and an employee in the film business in NYC. My contracts never specified a set time span (days, weeks, etc.) during which the company had to pay me "no matter what". That would have been madness, given the uncertainties of showbiz. What was specified was my rate of pay, to be paid for work completed according to the schedule and scope of work. It was understood that I could be terminated and paid off for work completed at any time, for non-performance or any other reason - like the film/show going on hiatus or being canceled, etc. Likewise, the amount of time I would work was whatever it took to do what I had contracted to do. That meant: as many hours in the day, or days in the week, as needed, for the straight pay that was written in the contract. Obviously any contractor makes the choice to take the job, but as we all know, in most employment markets that's not really a choice unless you are the world's most famous practitioner of your particular craft.

When I worked as an employee I was generally far better protected in this regard, thanks to my union overtime contract - which forced the producers to consider the lives and energy of their employees before doubling the amount of work for all concerned to make up for errors in scheduling or changes in the script. Employees generally got several weeks notice and/or pay if their employment was terminated due to layoffs. The whole point of a contracted work force is that the contract is written to the advantage of the company, and individual contractors who try to bend it their way have to negotiate individually, which is the weakest way to negotiate.

Companies with a reasonably steady flow of income (like effects houses and scene shops) prefer to use employees, for all the higher costs, so that they can build up a flexible, experienced, and productive team that can work on one or many productions at the same time. Companies with a one-time-only job to do, such as film productions, much prefer their people to be contractors, because the costs are much lower and their freedom to hire and fire on a dime is complete.

As you point out, crafts workers (actors and technicians in the arts) may wish to be either contractors or employees, for any number of personal reasons. But a contractor has no job security at all, and he or she must always bet that the working conditions and professional advancement of each new job will justify the risk of accepting straight pay for unlimited hours.

It has been reported - there's no way to say how accurately - that LotR producer Barry Osborne said at the 2001 Fellowship premiere in Wellington that he wished he had been able to treat more of his people on that film as contractors, so that he could fire them more quickly when he felt he had to. If I understand the point of the new NZ legislation, it closes the door that had been cracked open by the courts, whereby a contractor could be judged an employee based on legal equity, i.e. the inherent nature of the actual work and conditions. The result would seem to be that production companies can now hire only contractors, work them just like employees, and never fear any hint of unionization since NZ law forbids collective bargaining by contractors: a complete defeat for NZ's unions.